EJEMPLO: UNA LÍNEA DE ENSAMBLE DE DOS ETAPAS

In schools where researchers found that using data for school improvement succeeded, the principals recognised that the initiative would not succeed without setting time aside to focus on and explore information from data, and to organise opportunities to meet with other educators within and across grade levels and subjects. Also, principals recognised technology to be crucial to teacher data use (Marzano, 2003; Stingfield, Reynolds, & Schaffer, 2001).

173 The principal at Hope was asked about how she uses assessment data to improve teaching and learning. In her response she says that,

I’m involved in this way because when the question paper have been evaluated at first, they have to be seen, they have to be evaluated, they have to be seen to be…to be on the expected level of the learner, and then after. Yes. Myself and the co-ordinator, we are a team in fact. And then from there, after the children have written the question paper, the teacher has marked, it has to be

moderated. And then the statistics are also being taken of the learners in every learning area that they have performed. And then we can gauge ourselves on their [performance] according to those statistics. (Principal)

This response indicates that the principal is aware of the process which includes analysing data to reflect on teaching practise, in order to improve learner

performance. In saying they gauge themselves it may mean that they question why learners did not perform well on other questions. What does not seem to be

considered is what the data tells them about their teaching and how it can be

improved. For the principal and the phase head of departments (HODs) to moderate assessment questions is an indication that educators may want to ensure that what is assessed is relevant to the knowledge taught to learners, as well as to measure the correct level or use of language in questions, checking that what is assessed is linked to the curriculum. However, that does not indicate an effective use of data to improve teaching and learning.

An interesting point raised by the principal is her concern that primary schools need to produce good teaching practices that prepares learners who intend to continue with their studies. She said that the final school year National School Certificate results are affected by what happens at primary schools and that educators are responsible for

174 learner poor performance; they have to do something to prepare learners and help then perform better.

The ANA? Yes, so we get some feedback from the district and then I do bring the feedback to the teachers. And again, apart from maybe getting the statistics from the district, we are always concerned about the results. The National School Certificate results, [shows] that we are all failing [learners to do well when they are at that level of their studies]. So we feel as teachers that we are also part and parcel of the National School Certificate results. So down here we have to push, we have to work hard. (Principal)

This is an indication that the principal is aware that good teaching at lower grades can influence how well learners’ performance can improve and that later in their studies they would also succeed. However, some teacher responses seem to ignore the underperforming status of their school. This could mean that the principal’s vision of preparing learners to do well in their studies will not be achievable. When asked how they rate performance of their school generally, one of the language focus group teachers mentioned that,

And when we measure our Grade 7 learners, when they go to high school, even those who were not performing so well, we thought, you know what, this one, we don’t know what’s going to happen. You find that three years, or two years later, the child is like.It reflects, yes, when they go to high school, because at high school, they come back to say, wow, we want to see this school, your learners are doing wonders, your learners this and that. That’s why I’m saying, you know, to keep on doubting yourselves, you know, we are there, we are there.

The response seems to indicate that the teachers focus attention on a few learners who may have been doing well in their studies, ignoring that performance of the majority of learners represents the unsatisfactory and underperformance rating of school. Based on both the principals’ and the teachers’ responses, there seems to be a denial of the challenges in teaching, which reflects the reality of the poor performance in the school. Another limitation could be a result of being uninformed about how to use

175 data, for self-examination and introspection in their position as educators, and be held accountable.

Insufficient use of data at Hope could be associated to the lack of skills to interpret data and translate it into information, as a process involving data-driven decision making tools; necessary toward the effective use of data (Mandinach, Rivas, Light, Honey, & Heinze, 2006). Another challenge may be attributed to the fact that schools submit data to the district centres and are not directly supported in engaging with data to enquire & construct a practice of talking about learner performance (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2008). The process of aggregating marks at district level may not be informative for schools even through it enables the district to identify schools with teaching and learning problems. This practice does not seem to enable capacity building in schools, neither does it reinforce collaboration between schools and the district.